Baggett v. State
Baggett v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
According to the text-books treating of the subject, and numerous adjudications by the courts of England and America, this indictment is bad, for not stating the denomination of the bills stolen or received, or in some way more particularly describing them, or some of them, or averring that it could not be done, because it was unknown to the grand jurors.
¥e confess our inability to perceive the reason or wisdom of the requirement of such particularity in indictments, but so the law appears to be, and, as we have no statute changing the common law on this subject, we do not feel at liberty to disregard the rule so generally announced in the books. This indictment would probably be held good in Massachusetts, but in that state alone, in the absence of a statute affecting the question.
The motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained.
Reversed, indictment quashed and cause remanded for a new indictment, to await which the prisoner loill be held for answer.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Bill Baggett v. State
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Receiving- Stolen Property. Larceny of money. Description. Indictment. An indictment for knowingly receiving stolen money is fatally defective in failing to give the denomination of the bills, or in some way particularly designating them or some of them, or averring that it could not be done because the description was unknown to the grand jurors. It is not sufficient to state merely the character of the money and amount; as, “two hundred dollars in United States treasury notes, of the value of two hundred dollars.” ' 2. Same. Larceny of bills. Word “dollars.” Evidence. Nor can a conviction on such an indictment be sustained upon the assumption that the word “ dollars ” imports one-dollar bills, the evidence failing to show that there was a single one-dollar bill in the money alleged to . have been stolen.